In this chapter, Absalom overthrows his father and David flees for his life.
This chapter begins with Absalom amassing power and prestige for himself. He almost immediately demonstrates that he is more interested in his own honor and glory than the glory of the LORD, so it is unlikely that he would reign the way that God wishes.
The second thing worth mentioning is how Absalom's rebellion against David is contrary to how David himself treated Saul. When Saul was king, he attempted to kill David to protect his own throne and legacy. Now that David is king, it is his own son and likely heir to the throne that is remarkably attempting to overthrow his own father. Absalom essentially betrays David the same way that Saul (incorrectly) thought that David was going to betray him. In particular, David says "I will not lay a hand on the LORD's anointed"; Absalom shows no such reservation.
The third thing I'd like to point out is the peculiarity of Absalom's rebellion itself. Amnon, David's firstborn, is dead. Absalom slew him. Kileab is David's second-born, and he is only mentioned once in the entire bible. Although ostensibly he is now David's heir to the throne, some commentators suggest that he must have died in his youth to explain why Kileab is never mentioned in relation to the various rebellions against David or the eventual succession of Solomon.
If that were the case, then Absalom would be next in line for David's throne. However, it's possible that David disowned him after he murdered his brother. It's not exactly clear if that's the case after "the king kissed Absalom" in the previous chapter. By the ordinary pattern of inheritance, Absalom should be next in line for the throne. It would only be if David has disowned him that the throne would fall to one of Absalom's brothers, and that is the only situation where Absalom's rebellion makes any sense. It would be totally insane to try to usurp your father's throne if it's falling to you after he dies anyway. It's the equivalent of trying to steal from yourself. So I think it's more likely that David has already told Absalom that he would not be king, and Absalom is acting to secure his own future over the kingdom.
This chapter repeats the pattern from the previous couple chapters, which is David's weakness and undeserved trust for the people around him; in this case, Absalom. Absalom is amassing chariots and servants and through his good looks and charm, "stealing away the hearts of the men of Israel", and David does nothing about it. I wonder if David even realizes that his son is taking the kingdom out from under him. Absalom again asks David for permission, this time to depart to another city and David allows him to do so. David is blindly trusting, even though Absalom is trying to build his own power base. All I can imagine is that David doesn't realize Absalom is preparing a coup despite how public that behavior is. I mean, Absalom is literally standing at the gate talking to people as they enter the town about how he should be a judge, and David doesn't realize what is going on. This is unfortunate naivety on David's part, and it will cost him.
Absalom begins his rebellion by going to Hebron, which is interesting because Hebron was previously David's royal city and one of his most significant power centers, because it is (in a vague sense) like a capital for Judah, which is David's tribe. So Absalom's decision to go there reveals that David is losing the loyalty not just of the others tribes, but even his own tribe. One commentary I read suggested that Hebron turned against David because David moved the royal city from there to Jerusalem, which is an interesting suggestion.
The first decisive action David takes is to flee from Jerusalem, and it possibly saves his life. He was slow to realize Absalom turning the hearts of the people against him (by claiming that there was nobody with the king who could give them justice) but once he realized what happened, it seemed like the old David kicked back into life. Ironically, this is the second time David has had to flee for his life from the royal city; last time he was fleeing as a servant of Saul, and this time he is fleeing from his own throne which is about to be taken from him.
The rest of this chapter is essentially a parade of David's supporters, listing all of the prominent figures and groups that travel with him into exile or support him in other ways. All of these groups and individuals will remain deeply influential after Absalom's revolt is quashed, as this event is one of the first filters applied to see which of David's men are true to him and which are only interested in power and wealth.
David himself has spent many years wandering and running for his life, but many of the prominent figures in his kingdom joined him after he became king, so for many of them this is a decisive moment. David had no choice when he was sent into exile, but David's men do have a choice: Absalom would likely accept just about anyone who would swear loyalty to him. That makes the decision of those who go with David all the more significant.
It begins with the "mighty men", the Pelethites and Kerethites, and alongside this group it also mentions 600 Gittites, which is a demonym for the people of Gath. That these three groups are listed together suggests they fill a similar role, as loyal troops and enforcers of David's regime. The Gittites are most interesting because they are definitely not Israelites, so it is possible they are converts to Judaism. They also show exceptional loyalty, seeking to go with David into exile.
Next it lists Zadok and the Levites. It should not surprise us to learn that the religious authorities side with David given the prominence that David has placed on the ark and the temple and other things of the LORD. David has been a fervent (and by all accounts sincere) promoter of the LORD as king over Israel, which politically benefits the priests and Levites whose livelihood is dependent on how many sacrifices the people offer to the LORD.
As David goes past the Kidron valley and up the Mount of Olives, the story concludes with a tale of two counselors. The first counselor, Ahithophel, deliberately betrays David and goes to serve Absalom. The second counselor, Hushai, remains loyal to David and tries to go with him into exile.
I think these three groups also represent the different seasons and situations in David's life. He built the loyalty of the Pelethites and Gittites when he was in exile in Gath and the Negev, proving himself to be a rugged man and a fighter. He built the loyalty of the priests and Levites during the early days of his kingship when he brought the ark back to Jerusalem and tried to build a temple (though he was eventually dissuaded). The two counselors represent the political and administrative aspects of his kingship, as he increasingly drifts away from his shepherd youth and fugitive adolescence and is now becoming much more of an old, staid authority figure and managing complex international politics as Israel claims dominance over some of its neighbors and fights wars against others.
Out of these three groups, only the first one is permitted to go with him. David commands the priests, the ark and Hushai to return to Jerusalem and serve him by spying out Absalom's plans and to thwart him from within as a fifth column. It should not surprise us much that the two groups who supported him during his reign as king would be least capable of toughing it out in the Judean wilderness, and therefore he sends them back. They mean well, but it's unlikely they have the skills or endurance to help David in these kinds of situations, while the Pelethites and Kerethites cut their teeth being hunted by Saul alongside David.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Bible Commentary - 2 Samuel 14
In this chapter, Joab convinces David to bring Absalom back from exile.
Taken as a whole, I think this chapter also shows David to be a largely passive agent, as other people move and act around him. Other people come and ask him for things, but David does not seem to be taking the initiative I would expect in this story. It's possible that David is reluctant to punish Absalom when David himself committed murder by killing Uriah. This unfortunately shows us how sin in the highest reaches of government can ripple outward into society, as David's sin opens the door for many others to commit the same crimes that David himself committed.
First of all, David's "heart is inclined towards Absalom", and he "mourned for his son every day". But David doesn't take any action towards this, and it's only when Joab prods him that David allows Absalom to return.
Joab hires a "wise woman" to go and convince David to reconcile with Absalom. This story is strangely reminiscent of Nathan's parable through which he rebuked David in 2 Samuel 12, which makes me wonder if the "wise woman" is some sort of term for a female prophet. The banter between David and the "wise woman" is amusing, but I don't see anything there that requires much explanation.
Verse 7 says, "and destroy the heir also", by which the woman's (metaphorical) family gives away their true intentions. Although ostensibly they are killing the woman's son because he committed murder, she is implying that her extended family wants to kill him so that the woman can be left without an heir, and the man's inheritance would go to them instead. The woman, for her part, depends on her sons to provide for her old age, and of course she wants her husband and her family to continue in the land through her remaining son. Of course, none of this actually happened, but it's what she is trying to imply as her family's motivation.
In verse 11, the woman asks David to "remember the LORD your God", by which she is asking him to swear an oath confirming his judgment on her behalf. When David says, "as the LORD lives", that is a ritual formula indicating that he swore an oath in the name of the LORD to do what she asked.
David apparently perceives that Joab is behind this woman's behavior, which makes me wonder two things. First, how did David know that Joab was behind her, and secondly, why does Joab care about David's reconciliation with Absalom? We can see that Joab perceives something in David, that David wanted to be reconciled with Absalom. Perhaps Joab was concerned that this was becoming a distraction to David, or possibly he was seeking to ingratiate himself with Absalom. Joab remains loyal to David, but it's possible that he's trying to build alliances with "the princes", the future rulers of Israel. I should mention, Absalom is not David's heir; David's second-born (after Amnon, who died) is Kileab. Absalom is David's third-born, so it would only be with Kileab's death that Absalom would reign. Besides this, Kileab is a largely inconsequential figure, as David eventually declares Solomon to be his successor.
So I'm not sure. I don't understand Joab's motivation here, but what is clear is Joab's influence. Joab convinces David to bring Absalom back, and then convinces David to allow Absalom to meet him again. This second part is significant. In verse 24, we are told that David allows Absalom to return, but "let him not see my face." What this means is that David is allowing Absalom to live in his own home with his family, but he is denied having any political influence and David shows his disapproval in this way.
Absalom his to burn Joab's fields to get Joab to see him (Joab is possibly avoiding Absalom because Absalom is in disfavor with the king). Joab goes to talk to David, and David allows Absalom to see him, which basically means that he is politically rehabilitated as David has ultimately decided to not punish Absalom.
What I see here is Joab acting as a major power broker, and Absalom learning that he can murder people with impunity because David refuses to punish him.
There are a few more interesting details in this chapter. One is that Absalom names his daughter after his sister, Tamar. Secondly (and more important to the story) is that Absalom is "highly praised" and very handsome. We discover that he also has abundant quantities of hair, which is a symbol in the bible for male strength, youth and fertility. In this respect, Absalom is most reminiscent of Saul, who was also a tall, handsome and strong figure, but a terrible king. Absalom's beauty will play a role in later parts of the story, as he will cast his aspirations for the throne in a little while.
Taken as a whole, I think this chapter also shows David to be a largely passive agent, as other people move and act around him. Other people come and ask him for things, but David does not seem to be taking the initiative I would expect in this story. It's possible that David is reluctant to punish Absalom when David himself committed murder by killing Uriah. This unfortunately shows us how sin in the highest reaches of government can ripple outward into society, as David's sin opens the door for many others to commit the same crimes that David himself committed.
First of all, David's "heart is inclined towards Absalom", and he "mourned for his son every day". But David doesn't take any action towards this, and it's only when Joab prods him that David allows Absalom to return.
Joab hires a "wise woman" to go and convince David to reconcile with Absalom. This story is strangely reminiscent of Nathan's parable through which he rebuked David in 2 Samuel 12, which makes me wonder if the "wise woman" is some sort of term for a female prophet. The banter between David and the "wise woman" is amusing, but I don't see anything there that requires much explanation.
Verse 7 says, "and destroy the heir also", by which the woman's (metaphorical) family gives away their true intentions. Although ostensibly they are killing the woman's son because he committed murder, she is implying that her extended family wants to kill him so that the woman can be left without an heir, and the man's inheritance would go to them instead. The woman, for her part, depends on her sons to provide for her old age, and of course she wants her husband and her family to continue in the land through her remaining son. Of course, none of this actually happened, but it's what she is trying to imply as her family's motivation.
In verse 11, the woman asks David to "remember the LORD your God", by which she is asking him to swear an oath confirming his judgment on her behalf. When David says, "as the LORD lives", that is a ritual formula indicating that he swore an oath in the name of the LORD to do what she asked.
David apparently perceives that Joab is behind this woman's behavior, which makes me wonder two things. First, how did David know that Joab was behind her, and secondly, why does Joab care about David's reconciliation with Absalom? We can see that Joab perceives something in David, that David wanted to be reconciled with Absalom. Perhaps Joab was concerned that this was becoming a distraction to David, or possibly he was seeking to ingratiate himself with Absalom. Joab remains loyal to David, but it's possible that he's trying to build alliances with "the princes", the future rulers of Israel. I should mention, Absalom is not David's heir; David's second-born (after Amnon, who died) is Kileab. Absalom is David's third-born, so it would only be with Kileab's death that Absalom would reign. Besides this, Kileab is a largely inconsequential figure, as David eventually declares Solomon to be his successor.
So I'm not sure. I don't understand Joab's motivation here, but what is clear is Joab's influence. Joab convinces David to bring Absalom back, and then convinces David to allow Absalom to meet him again. This second part is significant. In verse 24, we are told that David allows Absalom to return, but "let him not see my face." What this means is that David is allowing Absalom to live in his own home with his family, but he is denied having any political influence and David shows his disapproval in this way.
Absalom his to burn Joab's fields to get Joab to see him (Joab is possibly avoiding Absalom because Absalom is in disfavor with the king). Joab goes to talk to David, and David allows Absalom to see him, which basically means that he is politically rehabilitated as David has ultimately decided to not punish Absalom.
What I see here is Joab acting as a major power broker, and Absalom learning that he can murder people with impunity because David refuses to punish him.
There are a few more interesting details in this chapter. One is that Absalom names his daughter after his sister, Tamar. Secondly (and more important to the story) is that Absalom is "highly praised" and very handsome. We discover that he also has abundant quantities of hair, which is a symbol in the bible for male strength, youth and fertility. In this respect, Absalom is most reminiscent of Saul, who was also a tall, handsome and strong figure, but a terrible king. Absalom's beauty will play a role in later parts of the story, as he will cast his aspirations for the throne in a little while.
Bible Commentary - 2 Samuel 13
In this chapter, Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar, and Absalom kills Amnon in revenge.
In previous chapters, I have discussed David's character. What stood out to me the most about him is that he sincerely loves God, and he is capable of being very shrewd in terms of political maneuvering, but he is not a strong ruler in terms of controlling the kingdom and maintaining authority over his subordinates. This showed up most clearly when David did not take revenge on Joab after Joab murdered Abner. In that case, David depends so heavily on Joab that he simply cannot punish him for his clearly evil deeds. Again, in 2 Samuel 12, Joab overthrew the city of Rabbah, and only after the battle was nearly over did David come in to claim the victory.
In this chapter, what we see is that David shows the same weakness when dealing with his own family, and this is going to cause David a lot of problems during the remainder of his lifetime, perhaps more than any other issue.
Also, these problems are what Nathan prophesied about when he said that David would face evil coming from his own household and family, so it is indirectly the result of his adultery with Bathsheba.
Anyway, to establish the main players here, let us begin by observing that Absalom and Tamar are full siblings, the children of the same mother. Amnon is their half-brother because he is the son of David, but not the son of the same wife of David as Absalom and Tamar. Jonadab is their cousin, the son of Shimeah who is a brother of David. I think it is also significant that Amnon is David's firstborn, which means that he is first in line for inheriting David's throne. I think it is likely that at least some part of David's weakness in dealing with Amnon is that David expect Amnon to inherit his kingdom.
What happens is Jonadab (for whatever reason) tells Amnon how he can trick Tamar into entering his house, and then rape her. David unwittingly plays along the entire time, and at no point does he proactively do anything to control his children. I think if there's one thing that stands out to me more than nearly anything else, it's David's passivity in this chapter. He's angry sometimes, he weeps other times, but at no point does he do anything. And we're talking about the king, so he is supposed to be the supreme authority over the entire kingdom, and much more so his own family of which he is the patriarch. This lackadaisical attitude is entirely out of keeping with David's many responsibilities.
After Amnon rapes Tamar, it says that he hates her with a greater hatred than his previous love for her. This is, no doubt, because Amnon never loved her. It was lust, pure and simple and evil, and once he got what he wanted, his disrespect for her came out to the fore.
A couple comments. First of all, the law forbids sexual relations between half-siblings (Lev 18:11), so what Amnon is doing is at least forbidden, possibly punishable by death. Rape is certainly punishable by death. Secondly, in v. 13 Tamar begs for Amnon to marry her instead of raping her, but he refuses, and then he throws her out. To a significant extent, men would only marry virgins in Israelite society (and most other societies in the ancient world), so by having sex with her and throwing her out, Amnon is coming about as close as he can get to preventing her from ever marrying, which is one of the biggest events for women in this time period (more so than in modern life, though marriage is still obviously significant in modern life as well).
Simply put, sexual standards were a lot stricter for women in Israel than they are in modern Western civilization. In modern times, a woman could have a career, sleep with one or more partners, get married late or never get married at all. In ancient Israel, they did not have most of these options. Men in ancient Israel could have multiple wives, could have sex before marriage (with certain limits) and in broad terms, there simply wasn't any notion of male virginity in the same way that their society thought about female virginity. As a result, what Amnon does is possibly even more horrible than when a woman is raped in modern life, because as we can see in v. 20, this event is essentially the end of Tamar's life as she remains in her brother's household and is "desolate" for the rest of her life.
Third, when Tamar tells Amnon that his actions would make him a "fool", and that he would be doing a "disgraceful thing". The root Hebrew word for both of these terms is "nabal", which means fool. This is, once again, David's karma. Because of David's sin, he who once showed himself superior to Nabal, the fool, now has his sons acting like fools as punishment for his affair with Bathsheba. The repeated use of the word "fool" is meant to contrast the shift in David's affair before and after he commits his great sin.
Two people hear about what happened: Absalom and David. David gets angry, but Absalom gets revenge. This is what I mean about David's weakness. Because he refused to take action against his own son, he essentially forces Absalom to get revenge for his sister. By all rights, Amnon deserved to die, and David is the authority most responsible for carrying out justice, which he does not do.
When Absalom sees that David is doing nothing, he holds a sheepshearing celebration (similar to 1 Samuel 25), and connives to invite all of David's sons, specifically requesting Amnon to come. David once again shows his passivity by asking, why Amnon? But then permitting him to go.
David first mourns for the death of Amnon, and then eventually mourns for his separation from Absalom, because Absalom was driven into exile. Absalom flees to Geshur, because he is the grandson of the king of Geshur (through his mother, the daughter of the king of Geshur). Absalom correctly believes that he can find shelter from retribution there. It's sadly ironic that Absalom has to go into exile when he is simply carrying out justice, because Amnon deserved to die from his crime.
What we see is that David is starting to show the same weakness towards Absalom that he showed towards Amnon. Even though David made a mistake by not punishing Amnon, he is showing further vulnerability by not controlling Absalom too. This will come back to cause him serious problems in the very near future.
In previous chapters, I have discussed David's character. What stood out to me the most about him is that he sincerely loves God, and he is capable of being very shrewd in terms of political maneuvering, but he is not a strong ruler in terms of controlling the kingdom and maintaining authority over his subordinates. This showed up most clearly when David did not take revenge on Joab after Joab murdered Abner. In that case, David depends so heavily on Joab that he simply cannot punish him for his clearly evil deeds. Again, in 2 Samuel 12, Joab overthrew the city of Rabbah, and only after the battle was nearly over did David come in to claim the victory.
In this chapter, what we see is that David shows the same weakness when dealing with his own family, and this is going to cause David a lot of problems during the remainder of his lifetime, perhaps more than any other issue.
Also, these problems are what Nathan prophesied about when he said that David would face evil coming from his own household and family, so it is indirectly the result of his adultery with Bathsheba.
Anyway, to establish the main players here, let us begin by observing that Absalom and Tamar are full siblings, the children of the same mother. Amnon is their half-brother because he is the son of David, but not the son of the same wife of David as Absalom and Tamar. Jonadab is their cousin, the son of Shimeah who is a brother of David. I think it is also significant that Amnon is David's firstborn, which means that he is first in line for inheriting David's throne. I think it is likely that at least some part of David's weakness in dealing with Amnon is that David expect Amnon to inherit his kingdom.
What happens is Jonadab (for whatever reason) tells Amnon how he can trick Tamar into entering his house, and then rape her. David unwittingly plays along the entire time, and at no point does he proactively do anything to control his children. I think if there's one thing that stands out to me more than nearly anything else, it's David's passivity in this chapter. He's angry sometimes, he weeps other times, but at no point does he do anything. And we're talking about the king, so he is supposed to be the supreme authority over the entire kingdom, and much more so his own family of which he is the patriarch. This lackadaisical attitude is entirely out of keeping with David's many responsibilities.
After Amnon rapes Tamar, it says that he hates her with a greater hatred than his previous love for her. This is, no doubt, because Amnon never loved her. It was lust, pure and simple and evil, and once he got what he wanted, his disrespect for her came out to the fore.
A couple comments. First of all, the law forbids sexual relations between half-siblings (Lev 18:11), so what Amnon is doing is at least forbidden, possibly punishable by death. Rape is certainly punishable by death. Secondly, in v. 13 Tamar begs for Amnon to marry her instead of raping her, but he refuses, and then he throws her out. To a significant extent, men would only marry virgins in Israelite society (and most other societies in the ancient world), so by having sex with her and throwing her out, Amnon is coming about as close as he can get to preventing her from ever marrying, which is one of the biggest events for women in this time period (more so than in modern life, though marriage is still obviously significant in modern life as well).
Simply put, sexual standards were a lot stricter for women in Israel than they are in modern Western civilization. In modern times, a woman could have a career, sleep with one or more partners, get married late or never get married at all. In ancient Israel, they did not have most of these options. Men in ancient Israel could have multiple wives, could have sex before marriage (with certain limits) and in broad terms, there simply wasn't any notion of male virginity in the same way that their society thought about female virginity. As a result, what Amnon does is possibly even more horrible than when a woman is raped in modern life, because as we can see in v. 20, this event is essentially the end of Tamar's life as she remains in her brother's household and is "desolate" for the rest of her life.
Third, when Tamar tells Amnon that his actions would make him a "fool", and that he would be doing a "disgraceful thing". The root Hebrew word for both of these terms is "nabal", which means fool. This is, once again, David's karma. Because of David's sin, he who once showed himself superior to Nabal, the fool, now has his sons acting like fools as punishment for his affair with Bathsheba. The repeated use of the word "fool" is meant to contrast the shift in David's affair before and after he commits his great sin.
Two people hear about what happened: Absalom and David. David gets angry, but Absalom gets revenge. This is what I mean about David's weakness. Because he refused to take action against his own son, he essentially forces Absalom to get revenge for his sister. By all rights, Amnon deserved to die, and David is the authority most responsible for carrying out justice, which he does not do.
When Absalom sees that David is doing nothing, he holds a sheepshearing celebration (similar to 1 Samuel 25), and connives to invite all of David's sons, specifically requesting Amnon to come. David once again shows his passivity by asking, why Amnon? But then permitting him to go.
David first mourns for the death of Amnon, and then eventually mourns for his separation from Absalom, because Absalom was driven into exile. Absalom flees to Geshur, because he is the grandson of the king of Geshur (through his mother, the daughter of the king of Geshur). Absalom correctly believes that he can find shelter from retribution there. It's sadly ironic that Absalom has to go into exile when he is simply carrying out justice, because Amnon deserved to die from his crime.
What we see is that David is starting to show the same weakness towards Absalom that he showed towards Amnon. Even though David made a mistake by not punishing Amnon, he is showing further vulnerability by not controlling Absalom too. This will come back to cause him serious problems in the very near future.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Bible Commentary - 2 Samuel 12
In this chapter, the prophet Nathan rebukes David, and the son borne through David's adultery dies.
This chapter contains the second reference to the person Nathan. The first was when David asked Nathan if he could build a temple for the LORD. We know very little of Nathan's history or life, but we know that he is now in the extremely difficult position of having to rebuke the king. Samuel got away with rebuking Saul because Samuel anointed him king, but even Samuel was afraid for his life when the LORD commanded him to go and anoint David (1 Samuel 16:2).
It is likely that Nathan has less authority than Samuel, but at the same time David is a much less sinister king than Saul, and he shows considerable humility in his response to Nathan. David shows that he is not replying to Nathan, but rather is replying to the rebuke of God. David knows that Nathan is just a messenger and that David is a servant of God and is being called to account by his own master. This is important because otherwise, Nathan has no authority or standing to rebuke the king.
That said, Nathan tells David a parable to reveal David's sin couched in a language he would be most familiar with, using the language of shepherding animals. I think this is God's way of taking David back from the splendor of kingship and to his youth. God is saying to David, I made you king; your power and glory are only because of my actions. God is both indicting David for his crime, and also reminding him of the humility of his youth.
As a minor note, the most likely reason why David insists on the sinner paying back four times what he took (v. 6) is because that's what is in the law of Moses, cf. Exodus 22:1.
Then Nathan tells him what will happen because of his sin, and it is pretty harsh. First, "the sword shall never depart from your house" (v. 10), meaning that the rest of David's life (and perhaps the rest of his descendants' lives) will be filled with conflict and violence. Second, David's own descendants will fight against him and cause some of that strife mentioned in v. 10. Third, because David committed adultery in secret, other people will commit adultery with his wives in public, and it will be his "companion" who does this. This recalls to me the punishment of Saul, where God told Saul that his kingdom would be given to his "neighbor" (1 Samuel 15:28).
Fourth, and most immediately, the child borne from this adultery would die.
These things do not happen because God is punishing David, since verse 13 tells us that the LORD has taken away David's sin. It is the consequences of the sin itself that harms David, just as much as David's sin hurt Uriah.
I also think the contents of verse 14 are interesting. It talks about the "enemies of the LORD" learning about David's sin. Who are the enemies spoken of? In most cases, "enemies of the LORD" in the OT refers to the hostile nations in Canaan that are resisting and fighting against Israel. However, what David did to Uriah and Bathsheba was done in secret, and only his closest allies know of it. So it is unlikely that hostile nations would discover this sin. Therefore I think it's more likely that the "enemies of the LORD" in this case could be a reference to hostile spiritual forces, even though these are rarely mentioned in the OT.
The way I think about it is like this. God brought in Israel to the promised land both to reward Israel, but also to punish the Canaanites. The Canaanite tribes were being punished because of their many sins (see Gen 15:16). What this means is that if David sins and the LORD did nothing about it, then it would render his earlier judgments hypocritical. No human being would know about it, but the evil powers and gods of the Canaanites would "blaspheme" by accusing God of judging unfairly. I'm not certain about this, but it's the most consistent explanation I can think of at this time.
After this, David's child with Bathsheba becomes sick and dies, just as Nathan said, in spite of David's prayers and fasting. Nothing David does can change back what would happen to his son, but David's prayers and fasting could change his own heart and help him to never do anything like this again. I don't believe that David is being punished, but he is being disciplined. The distinction is that "punishment" is what God does to sinners to bring justice, making them suffer because of their sins. "Discipline" is when God brings retribution that is designed to correct a sinner, to change them and get them away from the sins. God will punish those who sin and do not repent, but because David was forgiven, he is not punished, but he is disciplined. Amongst other differences, God will punish people as the judge of the world, but he disciplines as a father. So not only is a different action, it also implies a different relationship with the person who is being so treated.
As I just said, the purpose of punishment is to bring justice, but the purpose of discipline is to bring correction. Justice can happen whether or not the person receiving it agrees, just as you can lock a man in prison against his will. But correction cannot happen against a person's will, because you have to agree to change in order to be corrected.
Therefore one of the most important things about this story is to see how David reacts to the LORD's discipline, and I think for the most part his reaction reflects the humility and devotion that we've seen in previous chapters. Unlike Saul, who argued three times with Samuel before admitting that he sinned by sparing the Amalekites, David repents almost immediately when confronted by the prophet Nathan. After that, he prays and fasts on behalf of his son, appealing to the LORD for mercy. Even though his son dies regardless, I think it shows that David is really turning to the LORD in a major way that shows he is responding correctly to the LORD's discipline.
David's servants expected that he would be devastated when the child died, which was common in their time just as much as it's common in ours. I don't think there can be any doubt that David cared about this son of his, but he was not fasting or weeping as a show to other people, but as a show to change the heart of God. When he saw that God did not change, then he saw no reason to continue fasting or debasing himself.
This chapter has another one of my favorite verses, v. 23, which says, "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." This is another rare OT reference to the afterlife, where David implies that death is, in some way, a reunion between those who have died. While David's son cannot return to him, David can nevertheless "go to him" when he dies. This is a favorite verse to me because it rephrases death. Rather than viewing death as a subtraction, taking our life away, David sees his death as an addition, something that will bring him back to his son.
Verses 24-25 are short but important. Solomon will eventually be David's successor to the throne, and the LORD has already "loved him". We see talk about Solomon a lot more later on.
Lastly, Joab defeats the Ammonites and sends for David to come and take the honor of victory. The Ammonites are enslaved and become servants of Israel. More importantly, we see once again that David is not showing the military prowess of his youth. He depends on Joab to strike down the Ammonites and it is only because of Joab's loyalty that David is brought in to have the honor of defeating the Ammonites. David is showing himself to be an increasingly weak king. He is still devoted to the LORD, but he is weak politically. This is an ominous sign, because we know from Nathan's prophecy that people from David's own household will fight against him, and his weakness in responding to them will be a serious vulnerability to his reign. It is only by the LORD's mercy that he is not killed; as Nathan says, he will not die prematurely.
This chapter contains the second reference to the person Nathan. The first was when David asked Nathan if he could build a temple for the LORD. We know very little of Nathan's history or life, but we know that he is now in the extremely difficult position of having to rebuke the king. Samuel got away with rebuking Saul because Samuel anointed him king, but even Samuel was afraid for his life when the LORD commanded him to go and anoint David (1 Samuel 16:2).
It is likely that Nathan has less authority than Samuel, but at the same time David is a much less sinister king than Saul, and he shows considerable humility in his response to Nathan. David shows that he is not replying to Nathan, but rather is replying to the rebuke of God. David knows that Nathan is just a messenger and that David is a servant of God and is being called to account by his own master. This is important because otherwise, Nathan has no authority or standing to rebuke the king.
That said, Nathan tells David a parable to reveal David's sin couched in a language he would be most familiar with, using the language of shepherding animals. I think this is God's way of taking David back from the splendor of kingship and to his youth. God is saying to David, I made you king; your power and glory are only because of my actions. God is both indicting David for his crime, and also reminding him of the humility of his youth.
As a minor note, the most likely reason why David insists on the sinner paying back four times what he took (v. 6) is because that's what is in the law of Moses, cf. Exodus 22:1.
Then Nathan tells him what will happen because of his sin, and it is pretty harsh. First, "the sword shall never depart from your house" (v. 10), meaning that the rest of David's life (and perhaps the rest of his descendants' lives) will be filled with conflict and violence. Second, David's own descendants will fight against him and cause some of that strife mentioned in v. 10. Third, because David committed adultery in secret, other people will commit adultery with his wives in public, and it will be his "companion" who does this. This recalls to me the punishment of Saul, where God told Saul that his kingdom would be given to his "neighbor" (1 Samuel 15:28).
Fourth, and most immediately, the child borne from this adultery would die.
These things do not happen because God is punishing David, since verse 13 tells us that the LORD has taken away David's sin. It is the consequences of the sin itself that harms David, just as much as David's sin hurt Uriah.
I also think the contents of verse 14 are interesting. It talks about the "enemies of the LORD" learning about David's sin. Who are the enemies spoken of? In most cases, "enemies of the LORD" in the OT refers to the hostile nations in Canaan that are resisting and fighting against Israel. However, what David did to Uriah and Bathsheba was done in secret, and only his closest allies know of it. So it is unlikely that hostile nations would discover this sin. Therefore I think it's more likely that the "enemies of the LORD" in this case could be a reference to hostile spiritual forces, even though these are rarely mentioned in the OT.
The way I think about it is like this. God brought in Israel to the promised land both to reward Israel, but also to punish the Canaanites. The Canaanite tribes were being punished because of their many sins (see Gen 15:16). What this means is that if David sins and the LORD did nothing about it, then it would render his earlier judgments hypocritical. No human being would know about it, but the evil powers and gods of the Canaanites would "blaspheme" by accusing God of judging unfairly. I'm not certain about this, but it's the most consistent explanation I can think of at this time.
After this, David's child with Bathsheba becomes sick and dies, just as Nathan said, in spite of David's prayers and fasting. Nothing David does can change back what would happen to his son, but David's prayers and fasting could change his own heart and help him to never do anything like this again. I don't believe that David is being punished, but he is being disciplined. The distinction is that "punishment" is what God does to sinners to bring justice, making them suffer because of their sins. "Discipline" is when God brings retribution that is designed to correct a sinner, to change them and get them away from the sins. God will punish those who sin and do not repent, but because David was forgiven, he is not punished, but he is disciplined. Amongst other differences, God will punish people as the judge of the world, but he disciplines as a father. So not only is a different action, it also implies a different relationship with the person who is being so treated.
As I just said, the purpose of punishment is to bring justice, but the purpose of discipline is to bring correction. Justice can happen whether or not the person receiving it agrees, just as you can lock a man in prison against his will. But correction cannot happen against a person's will, because you have to agree to change in order to be corrected.
Therefore one of the most important things about this story is to see how David reacts to the LORD's discipline, and I think for the most part his reaction reflects the humility and devotion that we've seen in previous chapters. Unlike Saul, who argued three times with Samuel before admitting that he sinned by sparing the Amalekites, David repents almost immediately when confronted by the prophet Nathan. After that, he prays and fasts on behalf of his son, appealing to the LORD for mercy. Even though his son dies regardless, I think it shows that David is really turning to the LORD in a major way that shows he is responding correctly to the LORD's discipline.
David's servants expected that he would be devastated when the child died, which was common in their time just as much as it's common in ours. I don't think there can be any doubt that David cared about this son of his, but he was not fasting or weeping as a show to other people, but as a show to change the heart of God. When he saw that God did not change, then he saw no reason to continue fasting or debasing himself.
This chapter has another one of my favorite verses, v. 23, which says, "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." This is another rare OT reference to the afterlife, where David implies that death is, in some way, a reunion between those who have died. While David's son cannot return to him, David can nevertheless "go to him" when he dies. This is a favorite verse to me because it rephrases death. Rather than viewing death as a subtraction, taking our life away, David sees his death as an addition, something that will bring him back to his son.
Verses 24-25 are short but important. Solomon will eventually be David's successor to the throne, and the LORD has already "loved him". We see talk about Solomon a lot more later on.
Lastly, Joab defeats the Ammonites and sends for David to come and take the honor of victory. The Ammonites are enslaved and become servants of Israel. More importantly, we see once again that David is not showing the military prowess of his youth. He depends on Joab to strike down the Ammonites and it is only because of Joab's loyalty that David is brought in to have the honor of defeating the Ammonites. David is showing himself to be an increasingly weak king. He is still devoted to the LORD, but he is weak politically. This is an ominous sign, because we know from Nathan's prophecy that people from David's own household will fight against him, and his weakness in responding to them will be a serious vulnerability to his reign. It is only by the LORD's mercy that he is not killed; as Nathan says, he will not die prematurely.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Bible Commentary - 2 Samuel 11
In this chapter, David sins by committing adultery with Bathsheba.
This has got to be one of the most difficult chapters in the bible. David, the man after God's own heart, commits a series of reprehensible acts for his own gratification, abusing his powers as king in some of the most horrible ways. How could this be the man that God has chosen? But what makes it horrible also makes it one of the most sincere, and perhaps even encouraging, chapters in the bible, because it shows us how God responds to David's faults and how we can trust God to deal with us when we make mistakes.
This is one of the most human chapters in the bible. Let me explain what I mean by this. Abraham was a hero of the faith. He was a man called by God to depart from Ur and to enter the promised land and he obeyed. He was called to sacrifice his promised son, and he obeyed (though his son was spared from death). The closest thing Abraham had to a fault was when he lied and said that Sarah was his sister (Gen 12:13). But how can we relate to Abraham when in every way he shows himself to be faultless?
Moses makes mistakes here and there, most notably when he acted in anger and disobeyed the LORD, thereby disqualifying himself from entering the promised land (Num 20:10-12). While I don't want to make light of this situation, the fault of Moses is that he got too angry with the people of Israel who were themselves continuously disobedient to the LORD. That's like the kind of fault when people say they are "too humble" or "work too hard" or something like that. It doesn't strike me as a sincere admission of guilt, though I'm sure Moses sincerely regretted it when he was denied entrance into the promised land as a result.
This chapter is of a very different character. David first uses his royal powers to coerce Bathsheba to sleep with him, even though she was married. Then he tries to cover it up by bringing Uriah back and trying to get him to have sex with his own wife, that he might think the child was his own. Bathsheba probably realizes that she was also liable to die as an adulteress, so it's probable she went along with David's attempts at deception. Nevertheless, Uriah, in his loyalty to his fellow soldiers, refuses to go home, so David sends him with a message to Joab to have Uriah subtly murdered by putting him into a dangerous situation and then have all support withdrawn. About the only other sin David could add to this chapter would be worshiping other gods. Adultery and murder are enough to get him put to death under the law, so we can leave it at that.
Because David is king, there is no human with the authority to call him to account. He is at the top of the Israelite social pyramid. However, what we will find out in the following chapters is that there is another power atop the anointed king, and that is the God whose blessing anoints them and empowers them to rule. We will see from this how God deals with those who sin. For now, there are a couple points I would like to dwell on.
The first, as I said, is David as a model for sincere but sinful mankind. David is a man after God's own heart, the hero of Israel, who endured many hardships. David was given two chances to kill Saul, and in both instances refused to do so because it felt wrong for him to kill the man God had placed over the nation. God, as the ultimate ruler of Israel, eventually dealt with Saul and David, having been anointed, eventually became king in his own right. David has led Israel in many righteous ways, bringing the ark back to Jerusalem and following the LORD with a genuine heart. Even David, the beloved of God, sins in this grievous way. This encourages me because I know that we do not need to be perfect to be loved by God, we just need to be sincere in our devotion. In no way am I trying to make light of David's sin, and what we will find in the chapters to follow is that David will suffer tremendously for what he has done. But there is a tremendous difference between suffering for sins committed and being disqualified from God's salvation. Because David sins, he will suffer the consequences; not to say that God punishes him, but the sin itself punishes him because the consequences of sin is death (Gen 3:19). Like the way that a burning fire creates smoke, a burning sin creates anguish in those whom it touches. It is the mercy of God to sometimes heal or remove that suffering, but much more often it is the mercy of God that takes suffering and uses it to change us, to shape us and to strengthen and grow us through these experiences to take on a lifestyle of godliness.
The New Testament speaks of these things when Jesus suffers, as a direct consequence of human sin, but God takes that suffering and transforms it into a new life, both for Jesus who was raised from the dead, but also for all of us, who believe in him and will be raised to life together with him. In the same way, God brings about good things in our life by his transformative power, sometimes healing the consequences of sin and sometimes by training us to depend on him in order to overcome suffering and become a source of life to others.
One of the most common criticisms lodged against God is that he allows suffering to exist. Although this is a larger point than I want to current address, I will say this. Suffering exists as a result of sin, and this is a law of the universe just as much as the conservation of momentum or gravity or anything else. Through the sin of Adam, suffering entered the world. If God were to break this law, then sin would become unbounded and would grow with rampant force because there would be nothing to stop it, just as if a person jumped from the ground with no gravity, departing forever into the sky.
The grace and mercy of God is not to break the law and prevent suffering from emerging, but to control and shape that suffering in such a way that it leads to repentence, grace, mercy and eventually redemption. Mankind was separated from God in Genesis 3 when Adam sinned, just like a person jumping from the ground departs from the ground. But like gravity pulls the person back down to earth, God is using the consequences of sin, in combination with his own grace and mercy, to direct our course back to him. Those who choose to depart from God shall do so, but those who choose God, even in the midst of suffering, will find themselves returning to him with an inescapable force, in spite of suffering, not in the absence of suffering.
With all that said, the second point I'd like to bring up is the contrast between the sin of Saul and the sin of David. This is related to the first point. When Saul sins, he does so in the absence of genuine sincerity. Samuel the prophet accuses him of sparing the Amalekites, and he argues with Samuel three times, insisting that he had obeyed the LORD, while at the same time setting up a monument in his own honor (1 Sam 15:12). In the end, he admits that he was acting out of his fear of the people, showing himself to have greater regard for human opinion and his own glory than for obedience to the LORD and the glory of the LORD. In many ways, David shows himself to be the opposite of Saul, honoring God above human opinion, even though he was held in high regard by all the people. David is certainly a pragmatic politician and carefully maneuvers himself into authority, giving gifts to the elders of Judah, his marriage to Michal and his questionable alliance with Joab the most prominent aspects of that. But David also shows his exuberance for the LORD when bringing the ark into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). How is it that the ark remained in Kiriath-Jearim for the entire duration of Saul's reign, and David brings it into his capital in relatively short order? This, more than many other things, shows how Saul did not prioritize the LORD, but David did.
They both sin, but Saul is rejected because his heart is distant from God. David repents and suffers, but God gives him grace and matures him through his suffering, and he is not rejected.
The third point I'd like to bring up is again how this chapter reflects negatively on Joab. Having gotten away with his own murder, Joab now serves as an accomplice to David's attempt to murder Uriah. Not that we should be surprised a murderer shows no scruples about killing again, but the collusion between them reflects very negatively on both men. Ultimately though, David is held responsible by God for the death of Uriah.
Fourthly, I think it is significant to point out that Uriah is a Hittite, a descendant of the native tribes of Canaan and not a descendant of Abraham. Although we know little of his story, is it likely that he was circumcised and became a part of Israel in accordance with the provisions of Exodus 12:48. Indeed, the very first thing Uriah mentions as being in "temporary shelters" is "the ark" (v. 11), which was probably sent out with the army as in previous campaigns (1 Samuel 4). By all accounts, it appears as if Uriah is a convert to Judaism and a righteous and devout man in Israel's armies. He shows his resolute commitment to God and the nation by refusing the luxuries of civilian life, forcing David's hand and thus leading to his own death.
The fifth point, then, is to contrast Uriah's righteousness in this passage with David's wickedness. David first encourages Uriah to go home to his wife, sending a "gift" after him (v. 8). After that didn't work, David deliberately got him drunk, to undermine his discretion and judgment and to send him home again, and that also did not work (v. 13). It was only then that David resolved to secretly kill Uriah and marry Bathsheba, and thus to legalize a marriage with her and conceal the adultery. It is unlikely that David originally intended to marry Bathsheba, but only sleep with her once, until after it became obvious that her pregnancy and Uriah's refusal to sleep with her would expose both her and him as sinners. According to the law, the punishment for adultery is death.
If Uriah had slept with his wife, it is uncertain to me whether David would have continued the affair with Bathsheba or simply let it drift into the past, unknown to anyone but her and himself. However, I believe that God crafted the situation to expose David, to force him to take an even more sinful action to protect himself, and thereby exposing the depth of his sin to all of us as a lesson.
This is the sixth point. Just like God earlier put David twice in the position to kill Saul (first in 1 Samuel 24:3 and second in 1 Samuel 26:12), I believe in this chapter God put David in a position that after he committed adultery, he had to sin again to protect himself. In the first cases (with Saul), David was given an opportunity to show us his righteousness. In this second case (with Uriah), David was given an opportunity to show us his sinfulness. He does both, showing us his capability to do good as well as evil. But I believe these were situations that the LORD heavily influenced in the first place, to shape and change David's heart by bringing good and bad out of him, exemplifying the good and purging the evil. And in the second place, to show these traits to us, that we might learn to emulate the good and to flee from the evil.
Seventh, it is worthwhile to contrast David's actions here with what happened earlier in 1 Samuel 25 when David married Abigail. In that case, Abigail's husband was an evil man whom the LORD struck down, and Abigail freely married David. In this case, David took Bathsheba by force (not violently, but hardly by the woman's free will) and killed Uriah (who was a righteous man) by using his authority as king. In both cases David gets a new wife, but now he is the wicked man killing a righteous man, rather than when the LORD killed the wicked Nabal.
In the end, David is going to leave this experience bruised, battered, and more than a little regretful. But it is better by far that his evil should be exposed and repented of, than that it should remain latent and smouldering within his heart. Rather than leaving evil smouldering in David's heart, God uses this opportunity to mould his heart into something better and more pure, and because David is a man after God's own heart, he accepts this process as we will see.
This has got to be one of the most difficult chapters in the bible. David, the man after God's own heart, commits a series of reprehensible acts for his own gratification, abusing his powers as king in some of the most horrible ways. How could this be the man that God has chosen? But what makes it horrible also makes it one of the most sincere, and perhaps even encouraging, chapters in the bible, because it shows us how God responds to David's faults and how we can trust God to deal with us when we make mistakes.
This is one of the most human chapters in the bible. Let me explain what I mean by this. Abraham was a hero of the faith. He was a man called by God to depart from Ur and to enter the promised land and he obeyed. He was called to sacrifice his promised son, and he obeyed (though his son was spared from death). The closest thing Abraham had to a fault was when he lied and said that Sarah was his sister (Gen 12:13). But how can we relate to Abraham when in every way he shows himself to be faultless?
Moses makes mistakes here and there, most notably when he acted in anger and disobeyed the LORD, thereby disqualifying himself from entering the promised land (Num 20:10-12). While I don't want to make light of this situation, the fault of Moses is that he got too angry with the people of Israel who were themselves continuously disobedient to the LORD. That's like the kind of fault when people say they are "too humble" or "work too hard" or something like that. It doesn't strike me as a sincere admission of guilt, though I'm sure Moses sincerely regretted it when he was denied entrance into the promised land as a result.
This chapter is of a very different character. David first uses his royal powers to coerce Bathsheba to sleep with him, even though she was married. Then he tries to cover it up by bringing Uriah back and trying to get him to have sex with his own wife, that he might think the child was his own. Bathsheba probably realizes that she was also liable to die as an adulteress, so it's probable she went along with David's attempts at deception. Nevertheless, Uriah, in his loyalty to his fellow soldiers, refuses to go home, so David sends him with a message to Joab to have Uriah subtly murdered by putting him into a dangerous situation and then have all support withdrawn. About the only other sin David could add to this chapter would be worshiping other gods. Adultery and murder are enough to get him put to death under the law, so we can leave it at that.
Because David is king, there is no human with the authority to call him to account. He is at the top of the Israelite social pyramid. However, what we will find out in the following chapters is that there is another power atop the anointed king, and that is the God whose blessing anoints them and empowers them to rule. We will see from this how God deals with those who sin. For now, there are a couple points I would like to dwell on.
The first, as I said, is David as a model for sincere but sinful mankind. David is a man after God's own heart, the hero of Israel, who endured many hardships. David was given two chances to kill Saul, and in both instances refused to do so because it felt wrong for him to kill the man God had placed over the nation. God, as the ultimate ruler of Israel, eventually dealt with Saul and David, having been anointed, eventually became king in his own right. David has led Israel in many righteous ways, bringing the ark back to Jerusalem and following the LORD with a genuine heart. Even David, the beloved of God, sins in this grievous way. This encourages me because I know that we do not need to be perfect to be loved by God, we just need to be sincere in our devotion. In no way am I trying to make light of David's sin, and what we will find in the chapters to follow is that David will suffer tremendously for what he has done. But there is a tremendous difference between suffering for sins committed and being disqualified from God's salvation. Because David sins, he will suffer the consequences; not to say that God punishes him, but the sin itself punishes him because the consequences of sin is death (Gen 3:19). Like the way that a burning fire creates smoke, a burning sin creates anguish in those whom it touches. It is the mercy of God to sometimes heal or remove that suffering, but much more often it is the mercy of God that takes suffering and uses it to change us, to shape us and to strengthen and grow us through these experiences to take on a lifestyle of godliness.
The New Testament speaks of these things when Jesus suffers, as a direct consequence of human sin, but God takes that suffering and transforms it into a new life, both for Jesus who was raised from the dead, but also for all of us, who believe in him and will be raised to life together with him. In the same way, God brings about good things in our life by his transformative power, sometimes healing the consequences of sin and sometimes by training us to depend on him in order to overcome suffering and become a source of life to others.
One of the most common criticisms lodged against God is that he allows suffering to exist. Although this is a larger point than I want to current address, I will say this. Suffering exists as a result of sin, and this is a law of the universe just as much as the conservation of momentum or gravity or anything else. Through the sin of Adam, suffering entered the world. If God were to break this law, then sin would become unbounded and would grow with rampant force because there would be nothing to stop it, just as if a person jumped from the ground with no gravity, departing forever into the sky.
The grace and mercy of God is not to break the law and prevent suffering from emerging, but to control and shape that suffering in such a way that it leads to repentence, grace, mercy and eventually redemption. Mankind was separated from God in Genesis 3 when Adam sinned, just like a person jumping from the ground departs from the ground. But like gravity pulls the person back down to earth, God is using the consequences of sin, in combination with his own grace and mercy, to direct our course back to him. Those who choose to depart from God shall do so, but those who choose God, even in the midst of suffering, will find themselves returning to him with an inescapable force, in spite of suffering, not in the absence of suffering.
With all that said, the second point I'd like to bring up is the contrast between the sin of Saul and the sin of David. This is related to the first point. When Saul sins, he does so in the absence of genuine sincerity. Samuel the prophet accuses him of sparing the Amalekites, and he argues with Samuel three times, insisting that he had obeyed the LORD, while at the same time setting up a monument in his own honor (1 Sam 15:12). In the end, he admits that he was acting out of his fear of the people, showing himself to have greater regard for human opinion and his own glory than for obedience to the LORD and the glory of the LORD. In many ways, David shows himself to be the opposite of Saul, honoring God above human opinion, even though he was held in high regard by all the people. David is certainly a pragmatic politician and carefully maneuvers himself into authority, giving gifts to the elders of Judah, his marriage to Michal and his questionable alliance with Joab the most prominent aspects of that. But David also shows his exuberance for the LORD when bringing the ark into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). How is it that the ark remained in Kiriath-Jearim for the entire duration of Saul's reign, and David brings it into his capital in relatively short order? This, more than many other things, shows how Saul did not prioritize the LORD, but David did.
They both sin, but Saul is rejected because his heart is distant from God. David repents and suffers, but God gives him grace and matures him through his suffering, and he is not rejected.
The third point I'd like to bring up is again how this chapter reflects negatively on Joab. Having gotten away with his own murder, Joab now serves as an accomplice to David's attempt to murder Uriah. Not that we should be surprised a murderer shows no scruples about killing again, but the collusion between them reflects very negatively on both men. Ultimately though, David is held responsible by God for the death of Uriah.
Fourthly, I think it is significant to point out that Uriah is a Hittite, a descendant of the native tribes of Canaan and not a descendant of Abraham. Although we know little of his story, is it likely that he was circumcised and became a part of Israel in accordance with the provisions of Exodus 12:48. Indeed, the very first thing Uriah mentions as being in "temporary shelters" is "the ark" (v. 11), which was probably sent out with the army as in previous campaigns (1 Samuel 4). By all accounts, it appears as if Uriah is a convert to Judaism and a righteous and devout man in Israel's armies. He shows his resolute commitment to God and the nation by refusing the luxuries of civilian life, forcing David's hand and thus leading to his own death.
The fifth point, then, is to contrast Uriah's righteousness in this passage with David's wickedness. David first encourages Uriah to go home to his wife, sending a "gift" after him (v. 8). After that didn't work, David deliberately got him drunk, to undermine his discretion and judgment and to send him home again, and that also did not work (v. 13). It was only then that David resolved to secretly kill Uriah and marry Bathsheba, and thus to legalize a marriage with her and conceal the adultery. It is unlikely that David originally intended to marry Bathsheba, but only sleep with her once, until after it became obvious that her pregnancy and Uriah's refusal to sleep with her would expose both her and him as sinners. According to the law, the punishment for adultery is death.
If Uriah had slept with his wife, it is uncertain to me whether David would have continued the affair with Bathsheba or simply let it drift into the past, unknown to anyone but her and himself. However, I believe that God crafted the situation to expose David, to force him to take an even more sinful action to protect himself, and thereby exposing the depth of his sin to all of us as a lesson.
This is the sixth point. Just like God earlier put David twice in the position to kill Saul (first in 1 Samuel 24:3 and second in 1 Samuel 26:12), I believe in this chapter God put David in a position that after he committed adultery, he had to sin again to protect himself. In the first cases (with Saul), David was given an opportunity to show us his righteousness. In this second case (with Uriah), David was given an opportunity to show us his sinfulness. He does both, showing us his capability to do good as well as evil. But I believe these were situations that the LORD heavily influenced in the first place, to shape and change David's heart by bringing good and bad out of him, exemplifying the good and purging the evil. And in the second place, to show these traits to us, that we might learn to emulate the good and to flee from the evil.
Seventh, it is worthwhile to contrast David's actions here with what happened earlier in 1 Samuel 25 when David married Abigail. In that case, Abigail's husband was an evil man whom the LORD struck down, and Abigail freely married David. In this case, David took Bathsheba by force (not violently, but hardly by the woman's free will) and killed Uriah (who was a righteous man) by using his authority as king. In both cases David gets a new wife, but now he is the wicked man killing a righteous man, rather than when the LORD killed the wicked Nabal.
In the end, David is going to leave this experience bruised, battered, and more than a little regretful. But it is better by far that his evil should be exposed and repented of, than that it should remain latent and smouldering within his heart. Rather than leaving evil smouldering in David's heart, God uses this opportunity to mould his heart into something better and more pure, and because David is a man after God's own heart, he accepts this process as we will see.
Bible Commentary - 2 Samuel 10
In this chapter, the Ammonites spark a conflict with David, and are defeated along with the Arameans.
The first interesting point in this chapter is the interplay between David, Nahash and Hanun. In verse 2, David asserts that "Nahash showed kindness to me". I did a quick search for references to Nahash, and the only time he is ever mentioned before this is when he gathered up forces to fight a war against Jabesh-Gilead in 1 Samuel 11. So it is entirely unclear what Nahesh has done to "show kindness" to David, though it's possible that this phrase indicates a peace treaty existed between the two countries.
Hanun's suspicion seems warranted, given the long and violent history between Israel and Ammon. As far as I can tell, they have only ever fought wars against each other. There is no recorded interaction between David and Nahash of any positive character. If we trust the narrative here, then it would seem that David must have thought favorably of Nahash and Hanun mistreated David's emissaries. I think that is the author's perspective. However, as mentioned, it is not clear why we should trust David's goodwill if the author did not insist it were so.
This chapter, itself, perpetuates that negative relationship, as Israel takes this offense as yet another justification for war, and the Ammonites raise an army to preemptively attack Israel. Ammon rallies the Arameans as an ally in this conflict, which draws Israel into a larger regional conflict in which they are again victorious.
The second interesting point in this chapter is that it again shows how deeply David depends on Joab and Abishai. This is why Joab was able to get away with murder, because David still needs Joab to lead his armies. It is striking to see that Joab is the commander of the army and not David. David is likely a skilled warrior, and during the early period of Saul's reign, David was commander of Israel's armies. For whatever reason, that is no longer the case, perhaps because of old age or perhaps because of his busy affairs as the head of state.
Verses 4-5 also share some interesting details about what constitutes embarrassment in ancient times. Hanun cuts off half of their garments and half their beards, and David urges his men to wait in Jericho (near the Jordan river, on the outskirts of Israelite territory) until their beards have regrown. There are not many references to beards in the bible, but what we can infer from this passage is that for men, a long beard is a sign of respect and dignity, probably because of their veneration for the wisdom of old age and "elders", and cutting a man's beard forcibly would be an insult for this reason. Cutting off their garments would "expose their nakedness", a form of disgrace that has been reviled in Israelite society ever since the days of Noah (Gen 9:22-23, Exodus 20:26).
Otherwise, we are given few details of the conflict between Israel and the various foreign powers, except to note that Israel defeated all of them and they all made peace with Israel, likely at a high price of tribute or other concessions.
The first interesting point in this chapter is the interplay between David, Nahash and Hanun. In verse 2, David asserts that "Nahash showed kindness to me". I did a quick search for references to Nahash, and the only time he is ever mentioned before this is when he gathered up forces to fight a war against Jabesh-Gilead in 1 Samuel 11. So it is entirely unclear what Nahesh has done to "show kindness" to David, though it's possible that this phrase indicates a peace treaty existed between the two countries.
Hanun's suspicion seems warranted, given the long and violent history between Israel and Ammon. As far as I can tell, they have only ever fought wars against each other. There is no recorded interaction between David and Nahash of any positive character. If we trust the narrative here, then it would seem that David must have thought favorably of Nahash and Hanun mistreated David's emissaries. I think that is the author's perspective. However, as mentioned, it is not clear why we should trust David's goodwill if the author did not insist it were so.
This chapter, itself, perpetuates that negative relationship, as Israel takes this offense as yet another justification for war, and the Ammonites raise an army to preemptively attack Israel. Ammon rallies the Arameans as an ally in this conflict, which draws Israel into a larger regional conflict in which they are again victorious.
The second interesting point in this chapter is that it again shows how deeply David depends on Joab and Abishai. This is why Joab was able to get away with murder, because David still needs Joab to lead his armies. It is striking to see that Joab is the commander of the army and not David. David is likely a skilled warrior, and during the early period of Saul's reign, David was commander of Israel's armies. For whatever reason, that is no longer the case, perhaps because of old age or perhaps because of his busy affairs as the head of state.
Verses 4-5 also share some interesting details about what constitutes embarrassment in ancient times. Hanun cuts off half of their garments and half their beards, and David urges his men to wait in Jericho (near the Jordan river, on the outskirts of Israelite territory) until their beards have regrown. There are not many references to beards in the bible, but what we can infer from this passage is that for men, a long beard is a sign of respect and dignity, probably because of their veneration for the wisdom of old age and "elders", and cutting a man's beard forcibly would be an insult for this reason. Cutting off their garments would "expose their nakedness", a form of disgrace that has been reviled in Israelite society ever since the days of Noah (Gen 9:22-23, Exodus 20:26).
Otherwise, we are given few details of the conflict between Israel and the various foreign powers, except to note that Israel defeated all of them and they all made peace with Israel, likely at a high price of tribute or other concessions.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Bible Commentary - 2 Samuel 9
In this chapter, David provides for the welfare of Mephibosheth.
This is another short and relatively uneventful chapter. Basically, there are two things happening in this chapter. The first (and overt) objective is that David wants to "show kindness" to one of the descendants of Saul for the sake of his promise to Jonathan, which David made in 1 Samuel 20:15.
So David restores all of Saul's land (probably referring to the land of his inheritance, plus whatever land he had bought) to Mephibosheth, as Mephibosheth appears to have been taken into hiding when his uncle, Ish-Bosheth, was fighting a war against David. David also promises to let Mephibosheth eat free meals from the king's table.
A second, less obvious purpose for David's action in doing this is to keep Mephibosheth near Jerusalem, where he can be more easily monitored. Although he certainly seems helpless now, Mephibosheth is still a direct descendant of Saul, and could therefore prove to be David's adversary in the case that he raises another succession struggle. David wishes to show kindness to Mephibosheth, but he also wants to maintain control over all Saul's descendants so that they cannot raise an insurrection against him.
Still, David's actions here are certainly more kind than what is typically observed in this historical period when victors usually kill their opponents and their families. Remember how Saul killed Ahimelech and all of the priests of Nob? And they weren't even resisting him. David's action here is prudent (for the sake of maintaining control), but it is also shows that David's veneration for "the LORD's anointed" extends beyond Saul and to Saul's family. Like when David objected to the murder of Ish-Bosheth, David now refuses to shed innocent blood.
There will be a bit of drama related to Mephibosheth later in this book, but he will never actually resist David in his lifetime.
This is another short and relatively uneventful chapter. Basically, there are two things happening in this chapter. The first (and overt) objective is that David wants to "show kindness" to one of the descendants of Saul for the sake of his promise to Jonathan, which David made in 1 Samuel 20:15.
So David restores all of Saul's land (probably referring to the land of his inheritance, plus whatever land he had bought) to Mephibosheth, as Mephibosheth appears to have been taken into hiding when his uncle, Ish-Bosheth, was fighting a war against David. David also promises to let Mephibosheth eat free meals from the king's table.
A second, less obvious purpose for David's action in doing this is to keep Mephibosheth near Jerusalem, where he can be more easily monitored. Although he certainly seems helpless now, Mephibosheth is still a direct descendant of Saul, and could therefore prove to be David's adversary in the case that he raises another succession struggle. David wishes to show kindness to Mephibosheth, but he also wants to maintain control over all Saul's descendants so that they cannot raise an insurrection against him.
Still, David's actions here are certainly more kind than what is typically observed in this historical period when victors usually kill their opponents and their families. Remember how Saul killed Ahimelech and all of the priests of Nob? And they weren't even resisting him. David's action here is prudent (for the sake of maintaining control), but it is also shows that David's veneration for "the LORD's anointed" extends beyond Saul and to Saul's family. Like when David objected to the murder of Ish-Bosheth, David now refuses to shed innocent blood.
There will be a bit of drama related to Mephibosheth later in this book, but he will never actually resist David in his lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)